Posted
by
Zonk
on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:11AM
from the come-together-right-now dept.

Technician writes "It appears that SCO and Groklaw have the exact same tie to IBM: the ibiblio service. 'An eagle-eyed Groklaw ninja, sk43, has spotted an ftp site where you can get binary copies of Linux libraries needed by SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare customers who use lxrun. But you can't get the source code from that sco.com ftp site. SCO directs their customers to .... sunsite.unc.edu. Why bless my stars, sunsite.unc.edu is the old name for what is now ibiblio!'"

Basically, Information Week and some asshat reporter named Paul McDougall tried to smear Pamela Jones by suggesting IBM was behind Groklaw because Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio. Well, so is a shitload of other stuff, including support files for SCO OpenWare.

Exhibit 15 and 16 as offered by SCO are about Ibiblio supporting Groklaw. This isn't just about an Information week article - this is evidence SCO is offering to the court.

Sco is using this as evidence IN COURT that IBM is supporting Groklaw. Now we see that SCO is supported by Ibiblio (and therefore IBM, by SCO logic). This nullifies pretty much any benefit these exhibits would be for SCO.

SCO didn't just pick some random lawyers out of the phone book. One of the firms has Kevin McBride as a partner. Last name sound familiar? Kevin is the brother of SCO's CEO Darl McBride. In my paranoid (yet possibly true) ravings, part of SCO's plan has alway been to funnel part of the money to their friends and relatives in these law firms. Grab as much as they can for themselves, send the rest to friends as legal fees, and leave as little as possible for the damages that they'll be forced to pay once the farce is over.

On the other hand, this monkey shit is exactly what the lawyers are getting paid for. Not to win the case, not even to make valid legal point--only to draw the case out as long as possible. SCO isn't trying to win, just to get more money out of the market. (Does Microsoft pay "licensing fees" based on how long SCO keeps up the FUD about the legality of OSS?)

The thing I don't understand about this is what difference it would make if PJ *was* a front for IBM.

I mean, OK it's unethical for a company to hire someone to act as a PR front without admitting they work for them, but that doesn't make it against the law. Suppose SCO is exactly right (unlikely I know) and PJ isn't a real person at all but just a front for IBM's PR department - so what?

> I guess now they've finally succumbed to grasping at straws that aren't there.

"Finally"? You must be new here. The Society for Confabulation and Obsfucation have been building entire imaginary straw men out of those things, trying to Don Quixote their way through court.

My money still says SCO has been hoping a payoff, buy out or outright take over by IBM or one of the other (previous) defendents before they crash and burn. At this stage about all they're going to get is a helmet so they don't hurt them

SCO will add themselves to the list of people being sued. They will then quickly settle with themselves thus proving that being hoisted on ibiblio is admission of guilt. It's the ultimate Catch-SCO-22.

In that motions, SCOG make the claim... "In fact, most of the servers on which Groklaw.net and other ibiblio publications run are hosted on IBM-donated servers. IBM's support of ibiblio is, according to the project's director, continuing in nature."

OK, so groklaw simply points out that SCOG material is found amongst the "other ibiblio publications", and the entire SCOG motion is easily exposed as the utter nonsense it truly is.

There have been many strange articles in the media, for example in this forbes article they report that IBM may have destroyed evidence [forbes.com]. However that evidence was what SCO used as a basis for starting the case, and so SCO "must" have had it to begin with. Forbes and other similar media outlets report large amounts of SCO material without comment.

The question has been raised: where are they getting this material and why are the reporting it as it is. The primary place where that's been raised has been G [groklaw.net]

Well, TO be fair, SCO claimed IBM destroyed evidence when they had their linux developers remove the Unix source from they workstation. But IBM claims that it wasn't destroying anything because they already had copies of everything as well as what was released to the public supporting their claim.So, there was some destruction of evidences. Although this so called evidence had nothing to contribute other then what was already known and wasn't really destroyed in the sense of trying to hide it. It was just r

Not only that, but logs of who checked what out when should be a part of their source control system. IBM gave SCO a server that contained a complete copy of the repository that would have had that information in it, if SCO actually bothered to look for it.

Let's remember that IBM is still the biggest 'Unix' vendor - AIX. IBM's association with Linux may be purely incidental. They still maintain BOTH branches - Linux and AIX in their offerings. The case with SCO could've been closed months ago... wonder whether IBM's taking the matter REALLY seriously.

How will this drama unfold? Given the parallel SCO - Novell case that'd be heard first, I guess it could appear Novell, not SCO holds copyrights... and SCO vs IBM gets dissolved.

Given the negative publicity surrounding the MS-Novell deal, it's going to look foolish if Novell suddenly sues IBM and shuts down other distros except SuSE.

Anyways, it now appears SCO is just a front for IBM.. or the other way round!

Maybe they -are- taking it seriously. And IBM is purposefully drawing this out. The longer it takes, the larger the court fees they get to charge against SCO when they win. Make that number big enough and SCO's stock will die and IBM -never- has to worry about them again. Failing to get some court fees has got to be peanuts next to that. (Because we all know SCO won't be able to pay when they lose.)

I agree. Settling this once and for all will give IBM so much more leverage then anything. It also clears a shadow over their product and it set the bar appropriately high to discourage someone else decides form making similar claims. I doubt IBM really cares about SCO as much as they do running their product line and making money from it.

That might make sense, but SCO does not have enough money to see them through the year. There's no need to draw anything out, they already have far too little money to pay what they owe to Novell, let alone legal fees, or (soon enough) employee salaries.

I'd have agreed with you if they hadn't managed to live this long. They are obviously being helped by outside forces (Microsoft is one, apparently) and have already lived FAR longer than anyone suspected was possible.

Like a vampire, you can't just kill it, you have to also stick the stake in it's heart and make sure it doesn't get loose. I probably even go so far as to behead and then burn it, just to be absolutely sure. Maybe spread the ashes in some well sun-lit area afterwards.

Yes, I've been paying attention. My statement suggests (maybe not strongly enough) that the shoe may be on the other foot, now. Maybe it benefits IBM to delay now, and hurts SCO.

SCO wanted delays because they believed it would give them time to find proof for their case. They haven't found any, and now the little bit of 'proof' they DID have has been completely unmasked as being horseshit. Further delays will probably not help them 1 bit and will cost them a lot of money.

I can't say I know what IBM is thinking, but I think they have a strong incentive to get this tried quickly as a deterrent to other would-be SCOs out there. The question of Linux's legal status is still up if SCO goes bankrupt before it's over.

You're both wrong. It is SCO that as been digging in their feet and dragging things out. IBM already tried to have the whole case thrown overboard 2 years ago, and they're trying again right now with their summary judgment motions. It was SCO that turned discovery from a 1 year preparation into a 3 year fishing expedition (still finding nothing in the end it seems).

I would say IBM has bet the farm on Linux. Otherwise, the case might have been over long ago.

As far as anyone can tell, SCO brought the suit in hopes that IBM would buy them to shut them up. A few people would have made a lot of money and they could move along to the next scam. The trouble was that IBM, having bet the aforementioned farm, needed Linux to be unencumbered by any taint of anyone else's IP. So, IBM has defended Linux vigorously and when it's all over nobody will doubt that Linux is as pure as the driven snow. As Machiavelli pointed out, you don't send half your army into a battle that will determine your whole fate.

That and IBM is well aware that if you pay extortionists, they or others like them will be back for more. When (not if) SCO goes down in flames for their lame play at IBM, they'll serve as an example for others.

Hmmm, I always thought this case was about SCO's alleged IP. I wasn't aware that this case would establish that Linux doesn't infringe any IP, whether or not it (allegedly) belongs to SCO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but any random company could turn around and sue Linux distributors for patent infringement after this case and the results of this case would have no bearing on it whatsoever.

And currently IBMs Nasgul, err... legal team, are circling to* Kick head into the ground. "AT&T gave us an irrevocable licence to do the hell what we want"* Head stomped in. "IBM own all the code it donated under the terms of the GPL to Linux"* Grabbed by the throat and raised up. "Novell owns your source code, you just own the business of selling it"* Falcon punched right in the womb. "Hey, looky here, you've stolen GPL code that we own the copyright to. Fix it or lose LKP"* Knocked to the ground,

>>Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?I don't know. That's an unsubstantiated allegation made by the same group who claim to be "SCO" and that "mountains of 'UNIX'* code was found in Linux by their 'rocket scientist deep-divers'" so confidence in the truth of their assertions might be low.

I suggest you search their site for SCO using Google and then try to tell me that OSDL should be impartial. They didn't exactly make it unknown which side of the fence they sit on, considering they published numerous position papers on why exactly SCO is full of shit (paraphrased here of course).Besides, I could care less who funds Groklaw. They've been right 99% of the time, and SCO doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to influencing and abusing the media. I seem to recall SCO using the media to

Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?

The origin of the story is Daniel Lyons, known SCO cheerleader and Groklaw hater. He stated that the money was for "infrastructure issues." Tell me, what kind of $50,000 infrastructure issues could there be with Groklaw hosted at ibiblio for free?

And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.

Perhaps because it's a legal document, filed about her specifically?

It's one thing to refute claims made about you in the media, or claims made in court about someone else. But claims made about you in a court of law? Can you blame her for not wanting to make statements on the subject without legal representation?

No, feel free to discuss them. However, the strength of the allegations SCO has made has been thoroughly debunked with regard to iBiblio. After 3 years of this consistently happening to every allegation SCO makes (millions of lines of code, Project Monteray, ownership of copyrights and patents), I would recommend you have your head thoroughly examined though if you actually BELIEVE what they say without confirmation first. Everyone important at SCO is a compulsive liar, plain and simple.Do I necessarily bel

Lots of places have been accusing SCO of violating the GPL by providing lxrun but not the sources for it, and referring people to ibiblio for the sources. It's quite difficult, though, to violate the GPL when the project seems to be licensed exclusively under the Mozilla Public License [caltech.edu].

Let's not sink to the level of SCO by making accusations which are easily demonstrated to be false. Of course, if there's GPLed code in lxrun which was relicensed without permission of the original author that's another matter, but I haven't seen any claims of that.

People really should not assume someone is violating a license without checking to even see what license is involved. That includes when the accused is a big ball of crud like SCO.

However, the whole thing is really silly because nobody uses lxrun anymore. SCO dropped lxrun in favor of LKP more than five years ago. The fact that there's any mention of lxrun on SCO's web site just shows they've been spending more resources suing IBM than keeping their web server up to date.

The fact remains that if they are distributing GPL code in contravention of the license (I have no idea if they are or not and don't much care at this point as they will become a smoking hole in the ground with an I

Ummm...you should check YOUR facts. lxrun is licensed under the MPL, but the LINUX LIBRARIES used by lxrun are still covered under the GPL or LGPL, much like the end-user software run using lxrun would retain the same license. The Groklaw article clearly states it is talking about Linux LIBRARIES used BY lxrun. I just skimmed the article and retained that much before reading your comment, did you even bother opening and reading it?

You know what, I did in fact read several posts all over the web that said Lxrun was GPL. However, I went to SCO's site to see if they really are distributing Linux libraries, and this is what I found:1. There's a link to a linux-libs directory which no longer exists. that link is here [sco.com]. I have no proof there's been anything there in the last ten years or that there weren't sources under that directory somewhere when it did exist. The date on the link does not necessarily reflect when the directory actually

Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.

IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

Groklaw met the criteria [ibiblio.org] for hosting on ibiblio's free servers. If your web site meets the criteria, you can host it there for free also. View some other sites on their collection page [ibiblio.org]. Groklaw is a site to discuss open source legal issues, it is not limited to IBM or to SCO, although that is the predominant legal battle going on at this time. If you read Groklaw, you will know that there are not only articles about the other SCO litigation (RedHat, AutoZone, Daimler-Chrysler and Novell), but discussions about Microsoft, patents, ODF vs. MSXML, other GPL cases and the new GPL V3. Ibiblio is run by the University of North Carolina. IBM has contributed servers to the project long before Groklaw came into existence. IBM has no say in the sites hosted at Ibiblio or their content. Ibiblio could host SCO's site if it met their criteria.

I want to know why it matters though... Groklaw looks at the public filings that anyone could get if they were willing to go to the courthouse for a copy. They don't have any secret information and don't get information from IBM. IBM has been nearly quiet in the media since the case has begun, citing their preference not to comment on litigation.

Since before the IBM case started, SCO has been issuing public statements both through their media shills and on their own web site. They've made outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever to support them. They've tried to co-opt the GNU/Linux operating system as their own, charging $700 per processor to run it. That's a slap in the face for the thousands of contributors who relied on the GPL and made their own contributions, and to Linus Trovalds who initially developed Linux. After initially claiming that three teams of experts found millions of lines of infringing code in Linux, they waited three years to show ANY evidence and then it was only 326 lines. They transformed their case from Trade Secrets (since UNIX contains none as admitted by their lawyer Kevin McBride) into some bizzare "ladder" theory where IBM loses control of it's own independent creations simply by associating them with their flavors of licensed UNIX.

The most bizarre thing is how they value their "core UNIX intellectual property". Caldera was created as a Linux company in 1994. They raised about $70 million in an IPO as a Linux company when they went public in 2000. They purchased assets and operations from Tarentalla (Santa Cruz Operation) for $93.8 million in 2001. You can see that in the 10-Q [sec.gov] report they filed with the SEC (search for "Purchase price allocation"). They allocated that money this way: